On February 11th, Billy Ray Cyrus and rapper Buck 22 released a hip-hop version of Billy Ray’s long-lampooned country hit “Achy Breaky Heart” accompanied by a video complete with twerking space aliens and an introduction by Larry King of all people. Whether the point was to be purposefully-stupid and trashy to get people’s attention or not, that was the general result, and the video has received nearly 7.5 million hits and counting since its release.

“Achy Breaky 2” allows us once again to face the new music dilemma of whether a song is successful despite being bad, or because of it, and what this could mean for the future of music. In October of 2012 when Billboard modernized their chart rules, concerns were raised that including certain aspects of new media into the chart mix might make gauging the intent of listeners difficult. This was the question asked when the Brad Paisley / LL Cool J collaboration “Accidental Racist” appeared on Billboard’s country charts in the wake of an embrolio about the song in the media, including the lampooning of the track in skits by Saturday Night Live and by Stephen Colbert. Even though the song was never released as a single, the curiosity and car crash factor led to a successful chart performance, outperforming Paisley’s current single at the time.

One problem with Billboard’s new system, and many digital metrics we use to gauge popularity these days, is their ability to measure intent….People seeking to hear [“Accidental Racist’] for themselves downloaded it, or took to their music subscription service of choice to see what all the fuss was about, driving the metrics of the song up for the wrong reasons. Along with the trappings this paradigm presents currently, the next question is will there be artists who create songs simply because they know they will be either controversial or considered bad?

That concern was taken one step further when in February of 2013, Billboard changed their rules again to reflect YouTube data. This later rule is what has specifically allowed “Achy Breaky 2” to register on multiple Billboard charts, without selling a significant amount of downloads, and without receiving any sizable radio play. “Accidental Racist” wasn’t accompanied by a video, and wasn’t released purposely to be lampooned and draw attention to itself; it was simply an album cut that became the subject of interest and ridicule naturally.

Because of the amount of YouTube views “Achy Breaky 2″ achieved, the song debuted at #11 on Billboard’s Hot Rap songs chart, and #16 on the Streaming Songs chart. But is this a fair chart assessment for a song that the majority of listeners/viewers consumed simply to point and laugh at it?”

As Saving Country Music said at the time of Billboard’s YouTube rule change,

What Billboard’s YouTube data does not consider is quality, and the curiosity factor. Whereas songs on the radio, or songs that people purchase are being consumed because the public has deemed them appealing, music on YouTube can sometimes go viral for how bad or polarizing or offensive it is. Take for example Rebecca Black’s “Friday.” The song would have rocketed to #1 on the charts under this rule, yet the majority of the viewers of the video drew an unfavorable reaction to it. It was the car wreck factor that forced the song viral. This means that songs could chart because the public vehemently hates them instead of liking them.

And this is exactly what has happened with “Achy Breaky 2”, resulting in the edging out more relevant and appealing material on the charts.

How do we know “Achy Breaky 2” was bolstered by curiosity and dislike? Because just like Rebecca Black’s “Friday,” the favorable to unfavorable ratio on YouTube’s rating feature shows that by an almost 3 to 1 margin, viewers of “Achy Breaky 2” do not like the video.

Billboard editor Bill Werde has addressed this issue before, saying that he sees how this could be a problem, but none of Billboard’s protocols prevented “Achy Breaky 2” from charting. Could the reporting for Billboard’s charts from YouTube include a caveat based on YouTube’s like and dislike feature to filter out songs that clearly are not meeting the approval of watchers or listeners, or is this a slippery slope itself where music would begin to be judged on taste instead of impact by lay listeners?

But this isn’t where the controversy for “Achy Breaky 2” ends. Similar to how many country music fans have been angered by Billboard’s new chart rules and how they benefit artists that have “crossover” or pop appeal by including plays in pop radio for artists originating in country, so to has rap seen an infiltration of its charts by outside forces, effecting the autonomy of the genre and aiding the formation of a mono-genre. Though Billy Ray Cyrus is a country star and “Achy Breaky 2” is based off a country song, it was the rap charts that were forced to claim it, causing quite a clamor in the rap community.

Last week, the fastest-rising addition to Billboard’s Hot Rap Songs chart was neither a rap song, nor a hot song. It had been released just a week prior, and there was rapping. But Buck 22’s “Achy Breaky 2” … bears none of the hallmarks of the genre. It is, however, remarkable in that it is remarkably bad… [It] is emblematic of a genre in disrepair. It is an abomination, or, at least, a practical joke inflicted upon an unwitting public.

Buck 22 has arrived at a time when rap is more vulnerable than ever to interlopers and synthesists eager to run their sound through the Vitamix of popular music with such speed and force it’s impossible to determine the ingredients. “Achy Breaky 2” is a copy of a copy of a Xerox of a guy’s ass. It’s juvenile, and we’ve seen it before. But the quickness with which it grew makes me wonder whether it’s more than a novelty song.

But “Achy Breaky 2” was successful because it was a novelty song, bolstered by the new protocols governing Billboard’s charts that can’t measure intent. And if either the song, the collaboration, the video, or all of them were purposely made to be awful to take advantage of the viral curiosity they forecasted would ensue and the favorable metric environment that allowed it to be recognized on industry-leading charts, who’s to say it won’t happen again, or become prevalent or common in the music marketplace?

On second thought, “Achy Breaky 2” could be more than a novelty song. Much more. It could be the first song that was successful for being bad, and recognized by the industry for it.

Yep the real issue here is the YouTube component of these charts. When someone makes a decision to pay for something they are making a commitment of a finite resource (their money) so it is implicit that at some level they like this product and when enough people do this it can be safely called popular or successful. On the other hand, if something is free then there is no trade off by the consumer (money for the enjoyment of song). This is the biggest reason why YouTube views should not be used in ranking the popularity of music.

I wouldn’t rule out using YouTube data completely. If it is the place where people consume their music, I don’t see the harm in it. BUt in these specific instances, there has to be exceptions made in the rules to make sure a song like this does not slip through.

The problem though is they allow so many versions of a song to count including homemade personal versions. A couple of weeks ago some guy made a version of the song ‘Say Something’ by A Great Big World with his daughter in it and the thing went viral and caused that song to get a big boost in the YouTube component for the chart. People were watching that more for the personalized video than for the song. It’s happened a handful of other times since the inclusion of YouTube on the chart. Maybe if they measured only the OFFICIAL video then it would be OK but they have shown no indications that they are moving that way.

I totally understand and agree. I’m just saying I don’t think we should rule out the entire format for gaining some insight into the interest a song is receiving. Clearly the way it is set up now is not working.

Well it’s not just a place people consume music, it’s a money making enterprise where you could be talking about a few thousand dollars for each 1 million views (I have no idea what the real numbers are but I’ve seen estimates of between $5K and 25K per 1 million views depending on the level of advertising and major artists always have the commercials before the videos). Official videos are also used as a marketing launch pad with links to the places where people can buy the songs.

Of course people can just go out and buy Youtube views just the same as you can buy blocks of Facebook Friends or Twitter followers. Even our own government has been caught purchasing blocks of fake Twitter followers and Facebook likes (spending millions on it). There are estimates that 40% of Obama’s Twitter followers are fake and possibly up to 50% of major artists like Katy Perry or Lady Gaga.

But the consumer isn’t paying anything for each view. I could sit here and watch ‘Achy Breaky 2’ a thousand times in a row and not be out any money. But if went to iTunes and bought it a thousand times I would be out a couple grand or so. Just think how many times you’ve followed some link to YouTube and watched something for free and ask yourself if you would think twice about following that link if it was a couple bucks every time.

If it’s an official video from an artists, the consumer is paying for it by being forced to watch a couple of seconds of an ad (and click it away, or watch the whole thing).

Youtube videos are also a source or revenue and in that way it’s no different than selling a song (so to speak).

Radio stations requests were always behind chart figures and people don’t pay to listen to the radio either (unless it’s XM/Sirius). I could say arguing against using Youtube is like arguing against the very origin of music charts.

I’m not in favor of using Youtube for charts at all. I’m just sayin’….

Yeah radio is a totally different argument I’m just comparing buying a physical copy of a single like in the old days and now downloading a song is a much, much bigger commitment than sitting here and watching a video for free even with the ad which I can disregard very easily. Can’t disregard the cold hard cash I’m out at iTunes or the like.

Don’t forget, though: Billboard’s charts are intended to gauge popularity of a song, not love or dislike of it. I love the new rules because they sidestep the gatekeepers and, in many cases, prod those gatekeepers toward songs Americans like versus what they’re fed, and in a more relevant time period.

Adding filters wouldn’t work because it negates the song’s popularity. If it’s popular, it charts. Simple.

Think of all the really crappy radio hits from the past fifty years that weren’t necessarily fan favorites, those songs we look to now and say “it changed the overall quality of the genre.” Sure there will be blips like this (and again, I appreciate that a song like Achy Breaky 2 can chart because it is popular), but I just don’t see anything bad about these new rules. They’re very democratizing, and who’s always gonna be happy in a democracy?

But Joe, if you look at the original version of “Achy Breaky Heart,” which many would argue is one of the “worst” songs of all time, the likes on YouTube are 26.654 and the dislikes are 2,197. It is not even close to the same ratio as “Achy Breaky 2”. Nobody is saying the quality of songs need to be gauged by the public. In fact I even went out of my way in the article to say this could be a slippery slope. But when someone is making something purposely bad to take advantage of these rules, the song never even really enetered the American zeitgeist because it’s not on the radio, not being shown on music television, I think there is the need for a judgement call, and Billboard’s editor Bill Werde has alluded to that as well.

Let me put it like this: You can very well make the argument that there were more “popular” rap songs that got edged out by “Achy Breaky 2” because people enjoy them. Consuming a song on YouTune once because you want to laugh at it with your friends on Facebook is not “popularity’> It’s the equivalent of everyone getting together to vote the most nerdy, unpopular guy in school as the “Most Popular” to be ironic. In the end, the quality of music suffers, and that is not the intent of Billboard’s charts; the intent is the opposite.

1st: if YouTube existed in 1992, I’ll bet the likes/dislikes ratio for the original Achy Breaky would’ve been flipped, with a far wider spread.

2nd: I totally agree about the slippery slope and gaming the system. But it’s always been that way and probably always will be. If there’s a system, it will be gamed.

Playing a song on YouTube so you can laugh at it: that’s more about sentiment than it is popularity. Billboard doesn’t gauge sentiment. If half the people watching Two and a Half Men a few years ago were only watching to see if they could tell Charlie Sheen was on cocaine, Nielsen can’t step in and say “we’re only granting you half the ratings because the other half of the viewers weren’t watching for the intended purpose.”

Don’t get me wrong. I agree the quality of mainstream country has gone down considerably. But blaming Billboard for not allowing consolidated radio stations with one centralized playlist to define what’s popular isn’t the answer.

I hate the new rules because they ruin country music and radio. When Billboard’s editor did a chat to explain and sell this change he said country is going pop and some people in Nashville don’t like it. I imagine those same people don’t like this change that helps country go pop and rap. Later a Billboard article stated they made changes to help the music business. If you read between the lines, a big label(s) probably asked them to do it to help them turn country pop and rap (monogenre).

What was the first song helped by the change? A Big Machine (partner Universal) artist’s pure pop song forced on country radio We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together. Then what happened? More and more monogenre songs from Universal labels hit country radio and the Billboard Hot Country chart. Cruise was the next and Florida Georgia Line is on a label owned by Big Machine and Universal. After it hit #1 they bought more ads in Billboard bragging about breaking a decades old record but the reality is it’s due to the Billboard chart change. That’s My Kind Of Night is another Universal artist’s monogenre song helped by this change. Also Universal’s Eric Church’s monogenre songs. The songs he cut before the change are better.

Universal is the biggest, most powerful label in the world. Maybe Billboard”™s charts were intended to gauge popularity of songs but the reality is they have also increasingly become marketing tools for certain labels that buy advertising in Billboard. Think of all the crappy monogenre country radio hits since this change, which helped push those songs past the radio gatekeepers. Counting videos people watch for a laugh or to see sexy models stripping is bad enough but counting pop airplay is much worse. Big labels care ONLY about getting airplay and sales and nothing about quality or country music. The new level of corporate greed ruining country music and radio is disgusting and could backfire on them in the long run. Focus needs to get back to the music.

The problem Joe is that those crappy radio hits that you speak of are the ones most benefitting from these rule changes. More than ever before radio is basing their playlists on sales and things like YouTube. There was an article about this during CRS just a couple weeks ago with radio programmers saying just that. I think Trigger may have even linked to it. So this is less an improvement and more of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I would prefer radio to chase sales and streaming. It’s a vicious cycle, though. Because radio is the only point of access to new music for fans, they’ll play what they think a 20-year-old wants to hear, then complain that the sales and streaming makes it too popular too fast. So ultimately radio is unhappy that its not running the show anymore.

Before the methodology change, I can’t fathom that mainstream country radio was in any position to advocate for or advance quality music.